Loading...
2012-02-28 Planning Comm MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 1 CITY OF MENDOTA HEIGHTS DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 28, 2012 The regular meeting of the Mendota Heights Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 28, 2012, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1101 Victoria Curve at 7:00 P.M. The following Commissioners were present: Chair Norton, Commissioners Field, Hennes, Magnuson, Noonan, and Viksnins. Those absent: Commissioner Roston. Those present were Assistant to the City Administrator Jake Sedlacek, Public Works Director/City Engineer Mazzitello, and NAC Planner Stephen Grittman. Minutes were recorded by Heidi Guenther. Approval of Agenda The agenda was approved as submitted. Approval of January 24, 2012, Minutes COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 24, 2012, AS PRESENTED. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Hearings PLANNING CASE #2012-05 Sheila and Ab Hilo 2225 Apache Street Variance to the Front Yard Setback Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Sheila and Ab Hilo for approval of a variance to the front yard setback. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicants were proposing an addition to the front of their R-1 single family home. The proposed addition would extend into the 30 foot front yard setback by four feet. The applicants are seeking a four foot variance to allow for the dining room addition and feel their request would be to use the property in a reasonable manner. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended the Commission approve the variance, as a reasonable accommodation to permit reinvestment in the existing housing stock, and to permit the home to be improved nearer to contemporary single family housing in the community. The proposed addition would not appear to be excessive from a square footage standpoint for the use. Without the variance, reasonable expansion for this type of improvement does not seem feasible. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the neighboring properties with additions were completed through the variance process due to the small lot size. Mr. Grittman explained he was uncertain if variances were approved but he knew the lot sizes to be an issue in this neighborhood. Sheila Hilo, 2225 Apache Street, thanked the Planning Commission for considering her request. She indicated the dining room addition would add great value to her home as the current eating area was quite small. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 2 Commissioner Magnuson asked if the proposed dining room addition could be reduced in size to fit within the front yard setback. Mrs. Hilo stated the size could be reduced, but that the smaller size would not meet the needs of her family. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if other alternatives have been considered. Ms. Hilo stated if the addition were shifted a kitchen window would be covered and the exterior of the home would look awkward. She explained that she and her husband had reviewed several scenarios before bringing this to the City for a variance. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Seeing no one coming forward wishing to speak, Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Viksnins requested a slight language change to in the Findings of Fact, Item 4. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-06 Scott Schifflett on behalf of St. Thomas Academy 949 Mendota Heights Road Variances to the Number and Total Area for Signs Chair Norton disclosed that he attended St. Thomas Academy and holds a position on the alumni board; however, this was not found to be a conflict of interest. Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Scott Schifflett on behalf of St. Thomas Academy for approval of a variance to the number and total area for signs. Mr. Grittman noted that St. Thomas Academy is planning for the construction of a new activities facility at 949 Mendota Heights Road. With construction of the new building, the school will be removing the temporary air- supported structure on the west side of the existing buildings. As a part of the project, the school is also requesting approval of a variance for proposed wall signage for the activities building. Mr. Grittman explained the south face of the existing gymnasium displays existing wall signage visible from Mendota Heights Road. Since this south face of the building will be the location for the addition, the existing signage will need to be removed and replaced. The applicants wishes to affix two signs to the activities building, one 115 square feet in size and the other 132 square feet in size, with an additional sign on the east side of the building that is 127 square feet in size. Mr. Grittman indicated that the R zoning district allows for one nameplate sign for a permitted use by conditional use permit and shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet in area. The applicants have requested a variance to exceed the number and area requirements of wall signs allowed for non-residential uses located in the residential zoning district. The proposed St. Thomas wall signs are comparable in size to those approved at Henry Sibley. Staff Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 3 discussed the size differences between the signs requested between the two schools. While there is no doubt that the larger sign is more visible, variances are typically considered to accommodate the least amount necessary to make a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and recommended approval of the variance with the modification that the logo sign is resized to less than 60 square feet, comparable to that granted to Sibley High School. Commissioner Magnuson requested further information regarding the logo sign requested by Sibley High School. Mr. Grittman explained the 52 square foot logo sign was submitted by Sibley High School and was not resized in any way by the City. Commissioner Viksnins asked if two variance requests were being made. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case as the City was allowing for two lettered signs and one logo sign and each exceeded the zoning districts sign requirements. Commissioner Viksnins questioned if the City should consider amending the zoning code to address signage for non-residential uses in residential zoning districts. Mr. Grittman indicated there were very few non-residential uses in the residential zoning district, beyond the schools, golf courses and churches. Chair Norton indicated the Sibley High School sign was facing north or northeast and would be facing residential properties. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case and that the St. Thomas Academy signs would be facing south to the ice arena and freeway. Commissioner Noonan commented the sign exposure was different between the two schools but staff was recommending the logo signs be similar in size. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case. Commissioner Hennes asked if St. Thomas Academy had come forward with any other options besides the 132 square foot logo sign. Mr. Grittman was not aware of any other proposed logo signs. Commissioner Magnuson questioned if there was a size difference between the two school parcels. Mr. Grittman indicated the school parcels were similar in size as Sibley High School was located on 80 acres. Scott Schifflett, Opus Group representing St. Thomas Academy thanked the Commission for their time this evening. He presented the Commission with smaller signage for consideration stating the recommending size would be difficult to see from Mendota Heights Road. He indicated the proposed size would fit with the massing of the building and be visible from Mendota Heights Road. Mr. Schifflett presented a site plan with the 60 square foot sign and felt it did not fit with the integrity of the building. He stated St. Thomas Academy he would be willing to reduce the logo to a 10 foot by 10 foot sign. Commissioner Hennes questioned the background color of the sign. Mr. Schifflett discussed the proposed wall and sign colors in detail. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Frank Hickey, 1611 Delaware Avenue, noted he worked in signage for universities and hospitals. He felt the proposed signage from St. Thomas Academy was appropriate in both size and scale. He requested further information on the colors of the signs and asked if each would be illuminated. Mr. Schifflett explained the signs were made of aluminum and would not be lit. Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 4 AYES 6 NAYS 0 Commissioner Magnuson stated she would be in favor of the sign requests as presented by the applicant. COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT DETAILED IN THE STAFF REPORT. Commissioner Noonan did not feel it was necessary to hold St. Thomas Academy to the same sign standards as Sibley High School. He indicated the locations of the schools varied along with their proximity to residential homes and roadways. He supported the recommendation. Commissioner Viksnins expressed concern that the City would be receiving additional sign requests for non- residential properties located in the residential zoning district. He commented that perhaps a standard sign size should be set for these properties. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Chair Norton advised the City Council would consider this application at its March 6, 2012, meeting. PLANNING CASE #2012-07 Michael and Michelle Bader Variance to Street Right of Way Width for Foxwood Lane Planner Stephen Grittman presented the request of Michael and Michelle Bader for approval of a variance to street right of way width for Foxwood Lane. Mr. Grittman noted that the applicant is seeking approval of a variance to allow an existing platted street to be used as access to a future subdivision, when the existing street is less than the required 60 feet in right of way width. Foxwood was developed with the expectation that it would terminate in the existing cul-de-sac, serving only the three lots. However, the applicant owns the parcel to the south of the Foxwood plat, extending to Delaware Avenue on the east and a platted lot which abuts the end of Foxwood. The applicant is seeking to subdivide that parcel and would like to extend Foxwood Lane to the south to serve between one to four parcels, depending on the eventual subdivision plan. Mr. Grittman indicated the site could be served by Delaware Avenue, although the grade and tree loss would be much more extensive with that design. The sketch plan submitted as a part of the application shows that as many as four new buildable lots would be proposed with that design. If the variance is not approved, it is expected the applicant will seek the Delaware Avenue access proposal in a plat request later this year. If the variance is approved, the applicant has indicated his preference to submit a plat that extends the Foxwood Lane cul-de-sac to the south boundary of his property. Mr. Grittman presented staff’s analysis of the request and indicated the conditions to approve a variance were in place if the Commission chose to proceed. He reviewed the conditions for approval in detail indicating the City Attorney had made several recommendations and language changes. The city attorney suggested adding language to the conditions of approval, Item C as follows: “The applicant, upon proposing a plat shall provide the city with evidence that the applicant has obtained all easements which will be necessary for the extension of Foxwood and the completion of all necessary improvements.” Item D would be amended as follows: “Any proposed plat that utilizes the existing Foxwood Lane shall extend the public right of way to the boundary of the applicant’s property.” Commissioner Magnuson questioned if there was evidence from the neighbors on Delaware Avenue that it was less acceptable to access the plat from this location. Mr. Grittman stated this was the contention of the applicant. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 5 Commissioner Magnuson asked if the Commission was being asked to approve a variance along with an extension of the roadway. Mr. Grittman explained the request before the Commission was to approve the use of a right of way, which was below the City’s 60 right-of-way standards. The subdivision was a future request. Commissioner Magnuson inquired if the request should be reviewed once a plat was before the Commission for approval. She felt the request was premature. Mr. Grittman commented the applicant choose to bring the request before the Commission to see how the issue was dealt with before creating the plat. If the variance was approved, the plat would be accessed from Foxwood and if denied the plat would be redesigned and accessed from Delaware Avenue. Commissioner Hennes commented Foxwood Lane was currently a 20 foot wide roadway and was servicing two homes. He questioned if the roadway could remain 20 feet wide to service the new plat and additional homes, or if the size of the road had to increase due to the increase in homes serviced. Mr. Grittman stated there was no rule within the City stating a street had to be a certain width to serve X number of lots. He indicated the City’s right of way requirements were not being met with the current roadway and the Commission was being asked to evaluate if the right of way extension was acceptable through a variance. Public Works Director Mazzitello explained the City’s policy in building roadways was to build streets to a nine ton capacity with curb and gutter at a minimum of 28 feet in width. Commissioner Hennes questioned if there was flexibility to reduce the width. Mr. Mazzitello indicated there were circumstances in which roadways have been reduced. Commissioner Magnuson clarified that the current configuration of Foxwood had 50 feet of right of way, versus the required 60 feet of right of way. Mr. Grittman stated this was the case. Commissioner Magnuson asked why the City was requiring a variance to a condition that was preexisting, as the current roadway did not meet the City’s right of way standards. Mr. Grittman explained the variance was necessary as the 50 foot right of way was approved specific to the Foxwood plat and adequately met the needs of the homes on the cul-de-sac. The applicant was proposing to extend the right of way to serve additional properties. This was not considered by the Council with the original request. Commissioner Viksnins questioned what legal interest the applicant had in the right of way. Mr. Grittman commented the applicant’s property does come in contact with the right of way along with the parcel proposed for subdivision. Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the applicant had the right to seek this request. Mr. Grittman indicated the applicant had the right due to the fact he owned the adjacent parcel. Commissioner Viksnins understood there to be restrictive covenants in place for the Foxwood development. He asked if these had any impact on the request before the Commission this evening. Mr. Grittman explained he spoke with the City Attorney regarding this issue. The City was aware that neighbors are suggesting that there are covenants in place that would restrict the subdivision. He indicated that these are private property agreements and that the city does not enforce or interpret private covenants. He encouraged the neighbors to pursue this further with the applicant. Commissioner Viksnins inquired if the reasonable use of this property was an objective standard and that private agreements do not affect that standard. Mr. Grittman stated this was the position of staff. Commissioner Noonan questioned if the variance request was getting ahead of the subdivision and asked if the subdivision should come before the City as one request. Mr. Grittman stated this could have been completed through a PUD, which would address the issues in a more simple manner. However, the applicant wanted an answer on this issue first. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 6 Mike Bader, 1673 Delaware Avenue, stated he has lived in Mendota Heights in since 1988 and purchased 1673 Delaware in 1998. He indicated he purchased Lot 3 of Foxwood and brought a subdivision application to the City in 1993 and was subsequently denied. After raising four children in the City, his home was too large and they wanted to downsize. Mr. Bader explained that the request before the Commission had been altered from the previous request to address the concerns of the City. He questioned why the variance was needed when the existing roadway did not meet the City’s standards. Mr. Bader requested the Commission consider the request based on the historical use of properties and subdivisions in Mendota Heights. Paul McGinley, Loucks & Associates, indicated he has been working in the region for the past 40 years. He presented the Commission with a handout and discussed the material in detail. Mr. McGinley discussed his work history stating he has been working in the area since the 1970’s. Most recently, he worked with the Hidden Creek division in the Mendota Heights. Mr. McGinley indicated that the Foxwood addition was developed in a cul-de-sac which precluded any access to the 35 acres to the south and denied those property owners reasonable use of their property. He indicated there was a demand in this application to gain access to this property. The applicant has not drafted plans for this property to date as the plans would be determined greatly by the form of access. He reiterated that the Foxwood Addition was platted with a 50 foot right of way without a variance. He clarified that the current request was not for a subdivision, but only a variance, as the applicant was simply requesting to continue this 50 foot right of way into the proposed subdivision. Mr. McGinley reviewed the requirements for a variance noting the applicant was proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner. He commented the applicant was willing to increase the size of the roadway to 26, 28 or 30 feet in width if necessary, similar to Deertrail Court which as a 50’ right of way at it’s opening. Due to the fact the City platted the Foxwood Lane right of way at 50 feet created unique circumstances for the property and were not caused by the applicant. He noted the approval of the variance request would not alter the character of the neighborhood in which the property is located. Mr. McGinley discussed several developments within the City and their current roadway right of ways. He indicated the Somerset View Development had 117 lots with 50 foot right of way and 26 foot wide roadways. Friendly Hills has 64 lots with 50 foot right of way and 34 foot wide roadways. He concluded that a 30 foot roadway could be completed in a 50 foot right of way with adequate utilities to serve the new lots. Kensington includes 155 lots of 55’ right of ways with 34’ wide streets. Mr. McGinley commented on the location of the existing utilities within the roadway noting that the only utility that would ever be required to be extended down Foxwood Lane could be a water main, No sanitary sewer would need to be extended, as the access to that utility is down on Ridgewood. Mr. McGinley did not feel it would be necessary to include storm sewer pipe because drainage would be directed to the south. Small utilities gas, electricity and cable were present in the current cul-de-sac and could be easily extended into the proposed subdivision. He felt it was reasonable to assume a roadway less than 30 feet in width would serve the proposed lots while reducing water runoff and impervious surface. He indicated this was the tendency of cities and watersheds at this time. Mr. McGinley explained Foxwood Lane was 25 feet in width. The Bader’s have agreed to upgrade the roadway to meet the City’s safety requirements to allow for the proposed extension. He noted access from Delaware Avenue would be detrimental to the neighborhood due to the loss of trees and needed grade change. Mr. McGinley discussed a potential alignment for the roadway stating a 30 foot buffer would be provided for the Gray property. He reviewed the considerations that were made to the developer of the Foxwood Addition and requested the Commission make the same consideration for the Bader’s with their variance request. Chair Norton opened the public hearing. Chair Norton stated the Commission received a brief statement from neighbor Alma Derauf at 600 Wentworth Avenue who did not agree with any of Mr. Bader’s proposed plans. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 7 Lisa Gray, 540 Wentworth Avenue, presented the Commission with several picture boards. She appreciated the Commission’s time and then discussed her concerns with the proposed variance. She noted she purchased her home in the summer of 2011 and loved the natural setting. Ms. Gray did not feel it was necessary for the Bader’s to downsize their lot in order to create this subdivision. She felt Foxwood Lane should not be turned into a City street at the expense of the neighborhood. The addition of four small lots could also create a risk to the adjacent wetlands. For this reason, she did not support the application. Ms. Gray commented the Bader’s were asking for a variance on land that they did not fully own or control. A portion of this land directly affected her property. Second, if the variance were granted it would conflict with the Council’s prior approval of the Foxwood Addition with a 20 foot roadway and two and one-half acre lots. She felt the variance request would override the original Council approval of the Foxwood subdivision. Ms. Gray then questioned if the subdivision was consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. She discussed the issue in further detail reviewing the 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan development policies. It was noted the new development would not meet all zoning and subdivision regulations. The proposed roadway extension would also reduce property width and would remove trees, which unduly burdens her property along with the Lutz’s. Ms. Gray reviewed the Bader’s have the reasonable use of their property at this time. She reiterated that a previous request was denied in 2003 to subdivide this property. Several meeting minute comments were presented to the Commission from both staff and the City Attorney. She explained that economic matters are not considered to be practical difficulties. She indicated the subdivision could be accessed from Delaware Avenue by the applicant and perhaps should be considered. Ms. Gray commented the Bader’s purchased the Foxwood property to gain access to their Delaware property knowing full well that Foxwood Lane was a private roadway servicing the three lots within the addition. The property has restrictive covenants against any type of development, which he was now seeking to do. She understood it was not the City’s place to enforce covenant documents, however, she felt they were relevant as it directly discussed the roadway extension. Ms. Gray stated the essential character of the neighborhood would be altered by extending Foxwood Lane and by subdividing the property. This was not what the neighbors want or what the Council had in mind with the original Foxwood Addition. She provided the Planning Commission with her formal written comments. Ms. Gray respectfully submitted that the request has not been found to meet the variance request elements and should therefore be denied. Jennifer Lutz, 548 Foxwood Lane, noted she submitted a letter to the Commission with her concerns. She indicated she was confused by the request and felt it was premature given the fact a plat was not completed. The history of the Foxwood Addition was then discussed. At the time the area was developed, it was consistent with the City’s requirements. She indicated the 100 foot setback to the wetlands was required by the city and agreed upon by the developer. In addition, the roadway was originally planned to be private serving only the three lots, which made the 50 foot width reasonable. Ms. Lutz did not want to see her front yard setback changed due to roadway changes, as it would significantly affect the value of her property. She requested the Commission allow the roadway to remain at 20 feet as this was the original intention of the subdivision. The property owners were relying on the covenants to maintain the character of the neighborhood. If the variance request were approved, the integrity of the neighborhood would be lost. Ms. Lutz felt the addition of four lots was greatly inconsistent with the original intent of the Foxwood Addition and the private roadway. She bought into the subdivision relying on the covenants and conditions set by the City Council and developer. She also felt the proposed subdivision by the Bader’s violated the 2030 Comprehensive Plan as several properties would be unduly burdened. She did not object to the vacant property being developed, but stated the Bader’s should bear the burden of the new development on their property on Delaware Avenue rather than the property owners on Foxwood Lane. Ms. Lutz requested the Commission deny the variance request. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 8 Commissioner Magnuson questioned if the orange cones on her property were depicting the red line on the map. Ms. Lutz stated this was the case. Commissioner Noonan clarified that the front yard setback to the right of way would not be changed however the distance of the pavement from the house could be decreased. Mr. Sedlacek stated the home has a 30 foot variance from the 40 foot front yard setback. He indicated the home was built 15 feet from the right of way. Ms. Lutz sought clarification to the approved setback, and had understood the setback to be from the pavement. Chair Norton explained that the setback is measured from the right of way, and not from the pavement. Commissioner Hennes asked when the home was built. Ms. Lutz explained her husband built the home in 1995 and that she has lived at the property since 2002. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the roadway were to remain 20 feet in width if Ms. Lutz would still object to the potential subdivision. Ms. Lutz stated this was the case as she and her husband objected to additional traffic on the private roadway. Tim Aune, 554 Foxwood Lane, recommended the Commission deny the variance application submitted by the Bader’s. He thanked his neighbors for bringing about their concerns. He encouraged the Commission to review the minutes and original documents for the platting of the Foxwood Addition due to the contentious nature of the development. Mr. Aune stated the minutes provided context as to why the narrow roadway was made. He bought into the compromise understanding there were three lots in the subdivision with limited traffic on the roadway with no future subdivision. Mr. Aune explained Bader’s purchased Lot 3 understanding Foxwood Lane was created to service the three homes and would not service the adjacent land. He stated Foxwood Lane has become a quaint neighborhood and did not appreciate the proposed subdivision as it would alter the character of the neighborhood. Commissioner Hennes questioned if the original addition called for three lots. Mr. Aune stated the original documents called for two lots with an outlot in the wetlands. This idea was pushed aside for the final plat of three lots. He understood it was the City’s desire was to conform to City requirements with all new approved plats. Commissioner Hennes asked if the roadway remained 20 feet in width if he would be in favor of the potential subdivision. Mr. Aune stated he would still object as this put an undue burden on himself and the Lutz’s property with the additional traffic on the private roadway. Ms. Lutz read for the record minutes from October 27, 1992 planning commission noting that three lots were planned for the Foxwood Addition. Ms. Gray indicated the development could not be more than three lots based on the two and one-half acre lot minimum. Mr. Mazzitello stated this lot size was the minimum for septic systems. Jim Kohler, 1695 Delaware Avenue, indicated he has lived in Mendota Heights for a number of years and purchased the property at 1695 Delaware in 2008. He commented he did not have a deep history of the Foxwood Addition but noted he had spoken to the Bader’s regarding the proposed subdivision. He pointed out the location of his home on a plat map for the Commission. He explained this was an emotional issue and stated the Foxwood Addition did have several exceptions already in place. He encouraged City staff and the Commission to decide what the Bader parcel should look like when developed. He felt the character of the homes along Delaware Avenue would be greatly affected if access were granted from Delaware Avenue versus Foxwood Lane. He requested that the proposed subdivision not adversely affect his property and the future use of his property. Commissioner Noonan commented the options provided by the Bader’s do allow for future access of Mr. Kohler’s property. He questioned if Mr. Kohler supported any of these options. Mr. Kohler did not support the 30 foot access off of Delaware Avenue. He stated it was his intention to keep his property as is. However, he did need to protect his future rights. He understood that his neighbors to the south were also looking to keep their properties as is, but did not want to rule anything out in the future. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 9 Commissioner Field asked if the 20 foot roadway from Foxwood Lane would properly service his property if subdivided in the future. Mr. Kohler stated if the Planning Commission was considering the 20 foot roadway was sufficient to only service the Bader property this was not accommodate any further development of his property or the property to the south. Commissioner Field questioned if the utility easement for the roadway off of Delaware Avenue was on his line. Mr. Mazzitello commented he was not privy to any design plans for a roadway. However, he understood that a 60 foot right of way easement would be necessary. Mr. Sedlacek indicated this would be a private matter between property owners and not a matter of the City. Frank Hickey, 1611 Delaware Avenue, stated the Bader’s sent a concept plan to all of the neighbors. He expressed concern with homes being developed too closely to Delaware Avenue and how this would change the character of the roadway. Mr. McGinley offered several clear responses to concerns raised by neighboring property owners. He commented the variance request was being made by the Bader’s as a property owner with land that abutted Foxwood Lane. He indicated the variance request would not affect Ms. Gray’s side yard setback as the roadway would be located away from the 30 foot setback and buffer near her property. Mr. McGinley understood the concerns of the neighbors and how the increased density would affect the traffic to the Foxwood Addition. He reiterated that the Bader’s request was a reasonable use of their property to allow for ingress and egress to their lot. He felt there was a difficulty in accessing or servicing the properties at the back of the Super Block. The future extension of Ridgewood was not obtained through easements to service the internal properties. Mr. Bader referred to Minnesota State Statute 462.361 regarding variance denials. He reiterated the fact that he had a personal interest in the Foxwood Lane lot and he paid to have the roadway paved and snow removed. He indicated he has spoken with several other politicians regarding his potential subdivision and did not feel a condition was in place to not allow for the roadway to be extended. Chair Norton asked for a motion to close the public hearing. COMMISSIONER NOONAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Commissioner Field expressed concern with the timeliness of the variance request. He felt the “horse was before the cart” in this manner and would like to see the entire concept plan before approving anything. Commission Noonan agreed stating a planned unit development (PUD) would eliminate the need for a variance. He stated the PUD would then address the entire concept while providing the necessary conditions for approval. Commissioner Hennes was confused due to the fact the variance was necessary to allow for proper access into the potential development. Without the variance there would be no sense moving forward with the plan. Commissioner Viksnins indicated the applicant was requesting an advisory opinion. He agreed this was a complex application and proposal. He thanked those present this evening for providing arguments on both sides of the issue. He stated he was not prepared to vote on the issue this evening. He suggested a more complete picture of the situation be created through a PUD. Mr. Sedlacek explained staff encouraged the full package to be provided to the Planning Commission. However, the applicant was not interested in spending the funds to create a platted subdivision if the variance was not approved by the City. He stated it was uncommon for the City to have a variance for one small portion of a plat. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 10 Commissioner Magnuson appreciated the Bader’s not wanting to commit funds to the subdivision design process when the variance was not approved. However, she still questioned if a variance was even necessary for this request. She was not convinced the variance was necessary. She did not feel the Commission could make a decision this evening without further information from the applicant. Commissioner Hennes asked if the Commission had to make a decision this evening. Mr. Grittman indicated the City had time to hold this item over. Mr. Sedlacek explained the City had 60 days to review a case and this could be held over for an additional 60 days. The application date was February 6th. Mr. Grittman indicated if the Commission decided to table action on the variance that the Commissioners provide comment on the additional information needed to make a decision at the next meeting. Commissioner Noonan suggested the City Attorney be asked if a subdivision could be brought forward on the Bader property as a PUD without requiring a variance. Mr. Grittman stated the City’s Attorney validates the process the City is going through and has not been asked this question. Commissioner Field stated potential plans for the Bader property would have to be considered in conjunction with access to the properties to the south. He requested the City Attorney advise the Commission on this in greater detail as to how the City could be affected in the future. Mr. Mazzitello offered comment on the need for a variance speaking to City Code Subdivision Standards Title 11, Chapter 3, Paragraph 3, B2 outlines the right of way width requirements. He explained that all public right of ways shall have a minimum right of way width, for any subdivision, of not be less than 60 feet. Due to the fact Foxwood Lane had an existing 50 foot right of way, the applicant needed to apply for a variance from the City’s Zoning Code. Commissioner Magnuson stated Foxwood Lane was developed to be 20 feet in width with a 50 foot right of way. She questioned why the City would allow for a 50 foot right of way in the first place and now how the 60 foot right of way would affect the roadway. Mr. Mazzitello stated the current roadway was an existing non-conformity and because it would need to be improved, it would need to be brought up to the City’s current zoning standards or a variance would need to be granted. Mr. Grittman stated it was staff’s position that the development would intensify the use of the right of way. A future extension was not previously contemplated and the roadway does not meet the current standards. For that reason, the applicant required a variance from the current zoning standards. Commissioner Noonan asked if a PUD would better allow for this item to be considered. Mr. Grittman commented a PUD would be one approach to consider the proposed plat. He indicated this would need to be further discussed with the City Attorney. Commissioner Field stated a PUD was not before the Commission this evening. He indicated the Commission was being asked to consider a variance request and he felt he did not have enough information to take action this evening. Commissioner Field questioned if the Commission could approve a variance based on a concept with conditions. Commissioner Magnuson stated eventually a plat will come before the Commission. She stated the fact remains many years ago a roadway was not extended properly to provide access to these properties. She recommended the City look at these properties more broadly. Mr. Grittman stated this would be an option if this was the information the Commission needed to proceed with the request. Commissioner Magnus suggested staff speak further with the Bader’s to have the application withdrawn and brought back for further consideration as a PUD or plat. Commissioner Viksnins indicated the Commission could also deny the request based on the fact it lacked the necessary information for approval. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 11 Commissioner Field was not in favor of this option as it would place time restrictions and limitations on the applicant. He suggested the public hearing be reopened to allow the applicant to respond to the Commission’s discussion. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Mr. McGinley stated he understood the Commission’s concern. He stated a plan related to this property was not going to be completed until the variance issue was resolved. He commented that he and Mr. Bader agreed to table the issue to allow for additional discussions with staff and the City Attorney. Commissioner Field indicated he would like further information as to what the variance would service. Commissioner Magnuson agreed and understood the applicant did not want to complete a full plan. She felt this was a complicated plan and without the proper information a reasonable decision could not be made. Mr. Bader stated his preference was Option B, which required a variance. However, if the site were accessed from Delaware Avenue, he would not require a variance. He indicated he could not control when his neighbors decided to subdivide, but this should be considered by the Commission. He noted he would continue to work with the neighbors to bring about a resolution to this situation. Commissioner Field appreciated these comments as it did provide a more clear picture of how the extended roadway would be used. Ms. Lutz commented her home was only 15 feet from the private road, which was approved with the understanding that Foxwood Lane would remain a private 20 foot roadway. She questioned if there were any other homes in the City with this reduced setback. Ms. Gray indicated there was confusion with the variance request. She stated there was no need for a variance request without a subdivision request. She recommended a more concrete plan be submitted to the City prior to approving the variance. This would greatly assist the neighbors, City staff and the Planning Commission before a final decision was made. Commissioner Field was in favor of continuing the discussion on this item to the March 27th Planning Commission meeting. He suggested the City Attorney be present or provide comment on the necessity of the variance. Chair Norton suggested the applicant provide further information as to the plans for the subdivision to assist the Commission in making an informed decision. Commissioner Field indicated he was unclear if Foxwood Lane was a public street or a private road. Mr. Mazzitello stated Foxwood Lane was a private road constructed in a public right of way. The residents are responsible for maintaining the roadway. Commissioner Field questioned if the roadway could even be extended given the fact it was private. He asked if the variance were to proceed to the Council if the road extension would be a public street. Mr. Mazzitello stated the roadway would have to be built to City standards to be considered a public roadway. Staff recommends that the road be built to City standards and maintained by the public works department. Commissioner Field requested further information from the City Attorney on the private covenants that exist among the Foxwood Lane residents. Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 12 Commissioner Magnuson questioned if the variance were granted if it would violate any City Code or the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. She suggested staff provide comment on this issue as well. Chair Norton questioned if the applicant and his representative were clear of the expectations of the Commission. Mr. McGinley addressed the Commission stating he would speak with staff and be ready to provide additional information at the March 27th meeting. Chair Norton encouraged Mr. Bader and Mr. McGinley to also speak with the neighboring property owners prior to the March 27th meeting. COMMISSIONER FIELD MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HENNES, TO TABLE ACTION ON PLANNING CASE NO. 2012-07 HOLDING THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN TO THE MARCH 27, 2012, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Verbal Review Mr. Sedlacek gave the following verbal review: PLANNING CASE #2012-04 Henry Sibley High School Variance Request • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-01 City of Mendota Heights Wetland Zoning Amendment • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-02 City of Mendota Heights Critical Area Permitting Process • Approved by the City Council as recommended by the Planning Commission. PLANNING CASE #2012-03 City of Mendota Heights Accessory Structures • This item has not yet been heard by the City Council. Election of Chair and Vice Chair COMMISSIONER VIKSNINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER NOONAN, TO APPOINT STEVE NORTON AS THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AYES 5 NAYS 0 ABSTAIN 1 (NORTON) COMMISSIONER HENNES MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON, TO APPOINT LITTON FIELD AS THE VICE-CHAIR OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AYES 5 NAYS 0 ABSTAIN 1 (FIELD) Adjourn COMMISSIONER MAGNUSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER FIELD, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:39 P.M. AYES 6 NAYS 0 Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Minutes February 28, 2012 13 Heidi Guenther, Recording Secretary